Message for animaux

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme which would be totally illegal in any
other circumstances.
"Susan Hartman/Dirty Linen" wrote in message
...
Cheryl Isaak wrote:

That is much better than I thought they would be. I've heard some
horrendous
numbers associated with other government assistance programs.
It is part of my personal ethic that charity should be as direct as
possible.
Cheryl

Not looking to pick nits, but just wanted to point out that social
security is not really a charity program. It's a government program and
the returns one gets are somehow related (and I sure don't claim to know
how) to what one has paid in...

Though I wholeheartedly agree that charity should be as direct and as
efficient as possible! And govt. programs should be as efficient and
cost-effective as possible. If that 1% figure is correct, I'm amazed at
that efficiency, when you look at how many people the agency serves.

Sue

Post office employees do not pay into SS.
"Alison" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:11:56 -0500, "Lucille"
wrote:

Since every working citizen of the U.S. has to pay taxes toward FICA
(which
is Social Security) I believe they should all be entitled to collect it
upon
retirement. I'm also sure that the wealthier seniors do have to pay
taxes
on their social security monies if their income is at a certain level. I
didn't look up the exact details but I know that to be true.

Lucille

This is not actually true. There are some state employees in
California working for the Department of Corrections who do not pay
into social security (I was one of them for 7 years, 87-94 or
thereabouts.) They also do not get those work years credited towards
Social security (don't earn quarters, wages don't count, etc.)

Social security was meant to be just one leg of a 3-legged stool aka
retirement program; personal savings and pensions were supposed to be
the other 2.

ALison

Post office employees do not pay into SS.
"Alison"

Like most public employees they have a separate system, which is similar to SS
tho.

Public Employees Retirement System, I believe? I know that the initials are
right at least.

DH used to be a state employee, and he paid into PERS.

The big advantage of PERS over SS is that it is actually managed to accrue
interest on your investment. We have had some hard times, and been very
tempted to take the penalty to take the money out of PERS, but have managed to
survive without having to do so.

It's nice to know that small nest egg is there, in addition to the SS we hope
will still be available when we turn 65!!!

sigh

Caryn
Blue Wizard Designs
http://hometown.aol.com/crzy4xst/index.html
Updated: 7/7/03 -- now available Dragon of the Stars
View WIPs at: http://community.webshots.com/user/carynlws (Caryn's UFO's)

postal employees do pay into the SS system if they were hired after a certain
date (FERS). if they were hired before then, they do NOT pay into SS. and are
covered by Civil Service (CRS). My husband is CRS. I was FRS. he will not
collect SS since he does not have enough quarters for it. and he has 37 years
with the USPS.. Thank you.

Dianne Lewandowski wrote in message ...
Let's get a couple things straight, Caryn:
I made a post on mores, values, etiquette, and definitions et al.
You responded - to something Gillian wrote:

"I understood where it came from, but being a grown woman, who's parents
raised her well, I resented the lecture. I quit reading it by about the
4th definition, only scrolled down to see just how long it went
on.......which was entirely too far. The point was lost by that point."

To which I said:

"And so you were free to move on. Obviously you don't understand the
words, because in polite society, that's what you would do: move on and
keep your mouth shut."

Now, one can look at that as standing in front of you (in person) saying
"shut your mouth!", or one can read the entire context and think in
another direction: Your hostile comment was unnecessary and in polite
society, the thing to do is to keep your mouth zippered rather than have
to say some snide remark.


I said that YOUR point was lost because of the length of your list of
definitions, I was not talking about Gillian at all.

And how would you read it if someone told you to "keep your mouth
shut." Wouldn't you find it highly offensive?


As for the following:

I asked:
Why is it that, when I make a statement I am being "superior and
offensive", but when you make a statement, it is correct and humble.

You answered:
I will admit to the world that I can be a royal b****, and in this
case, I
have not been on my best behavior.

Well, that softens my feelings a bit. Thank you.


I notice you still can't admit that you aren't on your best behavior
either, however. So....don't expect a thank you from me.


But you and Karen have gone out of your way to try to make me think
that I know
absolutely nothing about what a rural area is, you refuse to actually
read what
I write, but instead harp on something I had said earlier, rather
than realized
I'd moved on in the thread.

Karen and I are trying valiently to explain that there is "rural" and
there is "rural". I repeat: the object of the original discussion was
to refute the notion that one can live decently on $11,000 a year. If
you understand that, then why did you chime into the debate that
postured: Yes you can if you move to rural America.

This is my original post in which I mentioned Akron, and I said that I
lived near it, not in it, and I just used it as an example of a lower
cost of living than is available in metro areas, not necessarily the
sole example of rural America's costs of living.



"However.....where we used to live near Akron, Ohio the cost of living
was far
far cheaper than here in Metro DC area.

In Akron, you can still buy a really really nice house for less than
$100K (in
fact a quick peek at realtor.com showed a few 3 bedroom houses for
less than
$15K!!!!). Here, you can't get a one room shack for that.

Growing one's own food is really not the point, being able to have
affordable
housing to stay within a $22K/yr income is.

And, really, rural America has more of that available than major
metropolitan
areas do!"

And I still stand by the point that you if you qarqe living on $22/K
annually, then there are cheaper places than in most metropolitan
areas.




I am not stupid. I have valid points, which were backed up by others
on this
list.

I never said you were stupid. I pulled a quote from a television show,
you thumbed your nose at it, and it turned out to be true. I knew it
was true, but I couldn't prove it at the moment. I also admitted where I
got the quote, but added that I had read that and heard that by
knowledgable people. Thanks to those that did back it up. I couldn't
find the darn statistics before I posted, but I knew they were out there.

The original point of my argument was that not every single rural
area in the
country had a bad economy and high cost of living.

I never saw that statement. If you actually MADE that statement, odds
are you would be correct. But MOST of rural America is not doing very
well over all. And to tell people they can live on $11M in rural areas
is condescending, mean-spirited, and not factual. That's what I was
responding to: the general notion.



I never, ever said that people can live on $11K a year. That is your
own vivid imagination attributing something to me that I never said.


You refused to admit that such a thing could be true, because it
disagreed
with YOUR view of the world. Instead you redefined "rural" to fit
your side of
the arguement.

No, Karen and I have been trying valiently to explain what rural America
is really like: far, far from civilization, in order to counter
statements that small rural areas 20 or 30 miles from large metro areas
are "normal". Downstate Illinois is "rural", a few farms around the
western and northwestern Chicago area aren't what we're talking about,
are not cheap to live in, and will soon be gobbled up by the ever
growing megalopolis.

Neither Karen nor I are trying to belittle anyone.


Perhaps, you think you weren't, but you and Karen were both very
insulting to anybody who defines rural the way the dictionary does.
You both talked down to Paula, Cheryl and me.

Here's a quote from a book I'm reading, that captures our little "moment
in time" quite well:

"I think an ideology comes out of feelings and it tends to be
non-thinking. A philosophy, on the other hand, can have a structured
thought base. One would hope that a philosophy, which is always a work
in progress, is influenced by facts. So there is a constant interplay
between 'what do I think' and 'why do I think it' . . .

"Now, if you gather more facts and have more experience, especially with
things that have gone wrong - those are especially good learning tools -
then you reshape your philosophy, because the facts tell you you've got
to. It doesn't change what you wish for. I mean, it's okay to wish for
something that's, you know, outside of your fact realm. But it's not
okay to confuse all that . . .

"Ideology is a lot easier, because you don't have to know anything or
search for anything. You already know the answer to everything. It's
not penetrable by facts. It's absolutism." ---Paul O'Neill

So, even though I didn't have "exact" fact at fingertip, I knew they
were there (poverty levels, social security, eldery). When Akron was
described as "rural", I went ballistic. To point to small towns you
might know and tell me they are cheap to live in . . . well, unless you
have experienced it yourself, you'll have to explain more. I did
considerable research this past year because my husband HAD NO JOB. We
would have gone ANYWHERE to eat. Now, can I tell you all those facts at
the drop of a hat? No. But I went through enough states on a
fact-finding mission to know pretty much what I'm talking about. I also
went through this 13 years ago.

You and Karen then went on to try to belittle me as being from the
east coast.
I am, so what?

It has never been my intention to make light of where you are born. Nor
have I said anything close to that. I am simply trying to focus on the
minimum wage debate and how we are treating poor Americans.

You were rude to me, over and over, and yet are surprised to get it
given back
in turn.

It was never my intention to be rude to you or anyone else. It is one
thing to attack an "idea", it is quite another to attack a person. I
don't know where I was "rude" to you, unless your words got hostile. I
am trying to explain an "idea". If I refute your assumptions, that is
not rude.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight, you weren't rude.... You have told me to "keep my
mouth shut", you have told me over and over that I don't know what I'm
talking about, even when I've explained that the things I have said
were only from my experience. Even in my first mention of Akron, I
said it was a place that one could afford to live in a reasonable
manner. I never said that anyone could live on $11K a year in the
middle of absolutely nowhere. You and Karen decided that is what I
said, and then decided to be as obnoxious as possible in proving me
wrong, and yourselves right.

I think if you were treated like that you'd think it was rude. Heck,
you think my kids writing thank you notes via email is rude!

BTW, don't do your typical "I'm now going to take the high road and
not respond" thing again...it's too late.

Caryn

On 09 Feb 2004 01:06:44 GMT, (LTuros41) wrote:

My husband is CR

He's Can't Remember Squat? giggling sorry Linda, but I HAD to do
it!!! =)


Jenn L.
http://community.webshots.com/user/jaliace
http://sewu9corn.blogspot.com
Current projects:
Lady Scarlet's Journey (Just Nan)
Simply Sensational January Calendar (Mill Hill)
Lady of the Flag (Mirabilia)

In article ,
(Caryn) writes:

And I still stand by the point that you if you qarqe living on $22/K
annually, then there are cheaper places than in most metropolitan
areas.

No one is disputing the point that you can live cheaper outside metropolitan
areas.

What we are disputing is the assumption that if you are in a cheaper, rural
area that you will *have* that $22,000.

If you're assuming that a pension check in that amount will go further, yes, it
will. (Unless you're retiring to a scenic tourist spot, where housing prices
and rent are scaled to tourist levels.)

However, you are assuming that working folks will be able to walk into a rural
area and immediately find full-time minimum wage jobs which will pay them
$22,000, and Dianne and I are telling you that that is not necessarily the
case. From our own experience, from the experience of our friends and family,
we are telling you that rural areas have high rates of unemployment, and what
jobs there are may be part-time and/or seasonal. So, your assumption fails
firstly on the assumption that the jobs are there for the taking, and secondly
on the assumption that they do, indeed, pay $11,000 a year, and not $5500 for a
six-month "season".

We've also reminded you that if you are outside a metropolitan area, there will
not be bus service, so a sizeable chunk of that $11,000 will be spent on either
a car or on cab fare. Over the summer, I called for an estimate on a trip to
the specialist 12-15 miles away. Round-trip would have been about $90. Now,
assuming that the rural area where your couple lives is only 15 miles from
wherever they need to go (doctor, grocery, etc.), only one trip per month will
run them over $1000 a year -- quite a chunk when you're scraping by on $11,000.
Most of us leave the house more than once a month. If they've picked a spot
(like the one XH was looking at) where it's 15 miles to the nearest place where
they can pick up a quart of milk, they'll be spending $4000 a year to go to the
convenience store once a week for milk/bread/eggs.

And this assumes that there *is* cab service in their rural area ... my
specialist is in an newer suburb that's still developing infrastructure. As
yet, there is not a single cab company based there. When I called into the
city for a cab, I was told that there would be a two-hour wait, and it was
insinuated that the cabbie would want a substantial tip for driving all the way
out there to pick me up (on top of the hefty fare).

So, yes, if you have that $22,000 from some assured source like a pension, and
you don't need to make multiple trips per month into town for medical
appointments, shopping, etc., you might do better in a rural area. But if you
have to work for that $22,000, don't bet on having that $22,000, because the
rural area you pick may not have any jobs available. And that $22,000 figure
was thrown out originally as two minimum wage incomes, implying that your
couple is having to work for their money.

Unfortunately, the older we get, the more trips we make to the doctor, so you
can't say that just because someone is retired they *won't* need to spend much
on transportation. They might end up making 3 trips a week -- that's $1100 a
month; if they're unfortunate enough to have to make 3 trips a week for the
full year (e.g., dialysis), there goes Grandpa's entire $11,000 (and then
some), leaving them to scrape by on Grandma's $11,000. But they're saving big
bucks on housing by living in the boonies!

DBF's folks also live in the boonies. When his dad needed state-of-the-art
surgery, the whole family decamped to the city, 200 miles away, for a week,
just in case dad didn't make it, they wanted to be able to say goodbye. A week
off work for each of the kids, a week of motel bills, a week of restaurant food
-- ran them several grand that they could've saved if the surgery could've been
done across town instead of halfway across the state. And every time he needed
post-surgery check-up, one of the kids had to take 2 days off work to drive
them to the city (and more motel and restaurant bills). That's another hidden
cost of living in the boonies to "save money". (And that assumes that you have
kids in the area who can drive you, rather than that you left the kids in New
York while you retired to Kansas for the lower costs. If you need to hire
someone to drive you, or take the bus, or fly because your DH can't handle a
12-hour bus trip, then that's an even larger cost for those follow-up visits.)


As Alison pointed out, the plane fare for the last 300 miles of her trip would
have been more than the plane fare for the first 3000 miles. One airline flies
to Eureka, and therefore can charge anything it likes because there's no
competition to bring the price down. In this case, the price is $400; I don't
recall if that was $400 each way or $400 round-trip, since I refused to pay it.
In either event, flying a sickly person from Eureka to the city for a few
follow-up visits runs into big bucks that our low-income couple doesn't have.
If it's someplace like Alturas with NO scheduled air service, you're at the
mercy of a charter pilot, who might charge an even more ridiculous fare.

So "live in a rural area" may only be cheaper if you have no medical problems,
and don't expect to have any medical problems. Commuting back to the city for
all my medical appointments would make it far more expensive to live somewhere
that my housing dollar goes further.


--
Finished 12/14/03 -- Mermaid (Dimensions)
WIP: Fireman's Prayer, Amid Amish Life, Angel of Autumn, Calif Sampler, Holiday
Snowglobe

Paralegal - Writer - Editor - Researcher
http://hometown.aol.com/kmc528/KMC.html

S (Karen C - California) wrote in message ...
In article , wd
(Caryn) writes:

Believe me if I
had been given a choice I never would have picked Long Island as a place to
grow up!

Well, gee, ***I*** liked it. And since I grew up there, I'm obviously not
belittling anyone else for doing so.

Actually, that explains a lot about you to me. I escaped LI as soon
as I could, and never go back unless I have no choice. Luckily, my
parents understand this and come visit me, rather than making us drive
thru NYC with three kids in the backseat.


What I *am* saying is that your experience in Metro NY is all well and good if
you're discussing life in Metro NY. And coming from Long Island, I'm sure that
Akron *did* seem rural to you. But someone who grew up in places that are
really rural would laugh themselves silly at the idea that Akron -- or even the
farms near Akron -- are a true reflection of "rural life".

Again....I was using the Akron AREA as an example. If you have never
visited towns like A****er, Ohio, than you have no idea if they are
rural or not do you?



To a kid from Long Island, my grandmother's 39 acre farm was huge. To my
friend who lives on a 160 acre cow farm in Minnesota, it's "they didn't
actually make a living off that small place?!" (Well, no. My grandfather had
a job in town, and the farm was never intended to support them.) To a Texas or
Montana rancher, my friend's 160 is pitifully small. My friend's farm provides
employment for her husband and son (when in residence), but does not hire
non-family members; when prices drop, she takes a job in town to help out.

Such is the plight of most farms in America, frequently a family
member must work off the farm to help feed the family.

Compare that to Western ranches which support a dozen families, with the men
working outdoors and the women working as the cook, the housekeeper, the
bookkeeper.... Good thing, because if the wives wanted to work "in town", it
would be a two-hour drive to the nearest town large enough to have places that
aren't family owned and operated. (Translation: in many rural towns, the mill
is run by Mr. & Mrs. Miller, the grocery is run by Mr. & Mrs. Grocer, the McDs
is run by Mr. & Mrs. McDonald. There's very little employment for people whose
family doesn't own one of the businesses.)


If you're thinking that in the area around Akron you could say "I can't find a
secretarial job, I guess I'll go work on a farm", you'd find that the farm jobs
are not plentiful, and are done primarily by members of the family. If they
need to hire someone, it'll probably be a son from the next farm over, rather
than a stranger.


If you're thinking you could sell your house in town and go buy a farm, you're
sadly mistaken there, too.

Never once did I suggest that anybody sell a house and buy a farm.


And in the areas near cities, you couldn't afford to buy a farm. They no
longer go for pennies an acre; those that are up for sale are going to
developers who are willing to pay $40,000 an acre, quickly recouped by building
houses for the growing population that's spreading outward from the cities.

Don't bother coming out west thinking you'll get a job on one of our commercial
farms. We have a large contingent of migrant farm workers; illegal aliens who
will work for less than minimum wage, won't demand benefits, won't threaten to
work elsewhere if their pay demands aren't met. They'll price you and your
minimum wage expectations right out of any farm job. On the farms that pay
piece rate, city folks don't have a chance: we don't know the tricks to
harvesting efficiently enough to earn a decent hourly wage, and as a result, at
the end of the day, you won't be invited back to work again tomorrow.

Please keep in mind when you read all those books about idyllic small towns
that they are fiction.

No kidding? REALLY? dripping with sarcasm I am actually a
realist.

snipped the last verbage, as it was long and just more of the same

I wish you'd get it thru your head that my point was that there are
some areas, outside the inner city, where people can afford to live.
Cheryl was also trying to make the point that even a small garden in
ones small yard can provide some basic vegetables which can help
sustain a family.

I know that if DH lost his job here in the Metro DC area, we would
VERY likely move the family back to Ohio. We could sell this house
for more than our mortgage and use that profit alone to pay for a
house up there.

I don't want to hear about people not having choices, everyone has
choices, sometimes they are very hard and require sacrifice. But
doesn't it make sense to pack up and move, rather than starve to death
in a place you can't afford to live?

Caryn

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:00:15 -0500, Susan Hartman/Dirty Linen
wrote:

I have to jump in here and "defend" churches...like every other human
institution, they're highly different from place to place and time to time.

I belong to a church that I *know* makes a difference. Doesn't matter to
you what the denomination is, but it's an active church that has a
sister relationship with a parish in Nicaragua (visits every year),
worked alongside other community parishes to restore a Habitat House for
Humanity during Lent and moved a family in, visits their shut-ins
regularly, supports other groups through allowing building use (scouts,
AA, Homeschool groups, charitable organizations), and has a youth
program that regularly draws 40+ kids. And supports other local
organizations (food pantries, prison ministry,Hispanic missions, etc.)
Supports new moms, families in crisis, and others in whatever kind of need.

It's certainly not solving all the world's problems, but it's making a
dent here in Baltiore.

And it aint' perfect, but what is?

sue
But what will your church do for me when I'm in need, if I don't join
it? I'm not a Christian; I'm a Pagan, and not about to change belief
systems, as I tried Christianity and found it doesn't work for me.
Darla
Sacred cows make great hamburgers.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:58:56 -0500, Cheryl Isaak
wrote:

When I was born, the average lifespan was 65. We are living longer, but
not necessarily in good health. Try telling constructions workers, tile
layers, brick layers, welders, etc., with tendons shot from years of
back-breaking work, that they will be able to continue this labor after 55.
What ever happened to training for a position in management/in the
office/supervisor?
Cheryl, there are more aging blue-collar workers than there are
alternative positions for those aging blue-collar workers. And the
economy is getting worse, not better. I could have stayed in
Dispatch, but I like driving, and would like to continue driving as
long as I can. But at some point, and probably before the male
drivers, I'm going to have to get out of the cab. What if there's no
Dispatch position available? Or other clerical position that is best
filled by an ex-driver? The company I work for just ain't that big.
It's also family owned, by a couple who are themselves childless, and
elderly.
Darla
Sacred cows make great hamburgers.